For a tiny group of individuals, that is not a theoretical question. Elon Musk, for example, has prioritised electric and autonomous cars, space exploration and new transport solutions – not to mention brain-computer interfaces, AI, and other ventures.
For the vast majority of people, however, deciding how to spend such a huge sum is not a problem they have to contend with. That does not mean it is not a worthwhile thing to consider, though, so we asked our panel of seasoned engineers the above question.
Some of the answers might surprise you – but a reassuringly large majority of the 80 respondents planned to spend their fortune in the best interests of humanity and the wider world. Here is a selection of what they had to say.
Clean energy and the climate emergency
King: “Humankind has for the past century revelled in the internal combustion engine and consumption of fossil fuels, to the cost of the planet and future generations. Urgent attention to develop technologies and infrastructure to use alternative energy sources.”
Robin Stafford Allen: “We really need to get away from reliance on fossil fuels, so I would back energy storage, which is the Achilles' heel of present renewables… Fusion research in all its forms, as this looks a good bet. Finally I would look to ‘grey gloop’ – hydrogen hydride – as a potential answer to vehicle powering using hydrogen and fuel cells.”
Clive Renton: “Given the future increase in demand for electricity, sustainable generation and distribution is a priority. The use of tidal current energy needs to be developed and combined with undersea energy storage, to match supply with demand.”
Neil Henderson: “Prioritise wave, tidal, and hydropower research and development. Need to back ‘clean’ battery technology that reduces the impact of mining for lithium and precious metals for batteries. Need to back technology to turn our roads into ‘electro-interactive’ routes – such as induction charging – to support the change to predominately electric vehicles.”
Dave Hughes: “In the Victorian times we needed a source of power so we dug up coal, and now we dig up lithium, vanadium etc. What's different in the thinking? Nothing.
“£10bn is needed to move the thinking forward. We need sources of power generation [where the] only effect on the planet is a positive one, and if they can help clean up the mess we've made of the planet so far then all the better. We've got to stop digging holes in the planet! So it's efficient hydrogen production, solar, geothermal, bio-fuels, alkaline fuel cells and locally produced energy for local consumption.”
Biomedical research
Andrew Sharratt: “Exoskeleton development. As people live longer and so need to work longer, we need to find ways of giving the body a helping hand. Quite a lot already happening in the military and some parts of heavy industry (particularly in Asia). All the underlying technologies are there, ‘just’ need to make the development.”
Aerospace and beyond
David Montgomery-Fox: “I'd prioritise space exploration and back life sciences so that we can survive longer and better in space. I’d also back next-generation propulsion.”
Neil G Chattle: “Aerospace engineering, with future jet engine technology, increasing the use of hydrogen, electrification, and the use of sustainable aviation fuels.”
Construction and heating
Joachim Neff: “I would back anything that helps to speed up and reduce the cost of improving the energy efficiency of buildings. Dramatically reducing the energy currently being wasted in heating terribly inefficient buildings, especially in the UK, is still not receiving the attention and funding it deserves. If retrofit is planned and implemented properly (e.g. using the principles developed over decades by the Passivhaus Institut in Germany), buildings don't just become much more energy efficient, but much more comfortable, too.”
Gary Lock: “Home heating without gas. Pumping sufficient pure hydrogen to every household is not possible. We therefore need to develop a new form of super-efficient home heating that will work for the majority of UK households.”
Remote working
Leonard: “I would focus on remote working technologies, including virtual reality (VR). Prioritising assisting remote manual working through VR and robotics. This negates my initial thought of working on high-speed economical transport, as it would remove the need to travel for work.”
What do you think of our panel’s suggestions? How would you spend £10bn on engineering R&D? Let us know in the comments below, or on Twitter @ProfEng.
Want the best engineering stories delivered straight to your inbox? The Professional Engineering newsletter gives you vital updates on the most cutting-edge engineering and exciting new job opportunities. To sign up, click here.
Content published by Professional Engineering does not necessarily represent the views of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers.